I have been asked to comment on the up-coming CA gubernatorial election: Of the Republican candidate, an immensely wealthy woman named Whitman, I know nothing except that she is alleged to be anti-gun by some people who claim to know and that the allegation is not surprising to anyone.

SPECIFICS: Whitman recently gave an interview to the SF Chronicle in which it reported her as believing "tough gun laws like assault weapon bans and handgun control [i.e., banning them] are appropriate for California." Under her stewarship of E-Bay it adopted a policy of refusing to advertise gun or ammo sales.

Those who want "In God We Trust" on coins and bills, spending of public monies to erect creches and other religious symbols, etc. argue that the First Amendment only precludes government aiding one denomination against another. This, they say, implicitly does not bar government promoting religious belief in general against non-believers.

If that argument were historically accurate (it is not!) consider some of its further policy implications: It might (or might not) allow the state to expend public funds in supporting Catholic and other parochial schools. But what the state definitely could do under the theory that it can support religion in general, is make all children attend public schools where they would be systematically inculcated to believe in God. There might be an exemption for parents who want to send their children to Catholic or other schools run by specific religions. But there would be none for atheists; they could be required to send their children to religious or public schools to be taught that what their parents believe are lies.